A.M.BADAR, J.

1. By this appeal, appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav, is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 16/02/2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik thereby convicting the appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav of the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act' for the sake of brevity). For the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. For the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial Court.

2. Facts leading to the prosecution and resultant conviction of appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav are thus :

(a) According to the case of prosecution, the victim of the crime in question/P.W.No.2 is a school going girl taking education in 9th Std. at Janata Vidyalaya, Dindori, at the relevant time. She was residing along with her parents, brothers and other family members. P.W.No.1 Ganpat is her father. She was born on 28/10/1999 and, as such, on the day of the incident i.e. on 23/12/2013, she was about fifteen years of age and, as such, a child.

(b) Appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav was residing in the neighbourhood of the house of the victim female child/P.W.No.2. Families of the prosecution party and that of accused were sharing cordial relations and were on visiting terms. The victim female child/P.W.No.2 was taking tuition from appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav. With passage of time, she started liking appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav and love relations developed between them. On 22/12/2013, family members of the victim female child/P.W.No.2 sensed the love affair between the victim female child/P.W.No.2 and appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav. They became angry with the victim female child/P.W.No.2 and had beaten her. She then went to the house of appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav and informed this fact to him. She made it clear to appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav that she is in deep love with him and it is not possible for her to live without him. She disclosed him that she is leaving her parental house on the next day and if he fails to accompany her, she will commit suicide. Appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav agreed and then the victim female child/P.W.No.2 returned to her house.

(c) On the next day i.e. on 23/12/2013, as agreed, the victim female child/P.W.No.2 left the house by disclosing her parents that she is going to the school. She went to Nashik and joined company of appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav. Then they went to Surat and stayed at a lodge. On the next day, they went to Ahmedabad and stayed in some lodge. There they had sexual relations. Thereafter, the couple went to Udaypur and stayed at Raj Lodge. Then, the victim female child/P.W.No.2 as well as appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav stayed at Champalal Dharmshala, Suraj Pol. Thereafter, they stayed in a rented room at Ambaneri as husband and wife.

(d) In the meanwhile, as the victim female child/P.W.No.2 went missing, her father P.W.No.1 Ganpat lodged missing report (Exhibit 23) on 25/12/2013 after frantic search for the victim yielded no result. As P.W.No.1 Ganpat came to know that his neighbourer i.e. appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav is also missing, he subsequently lodged FIR (Exhibit 24) suspecting that appellant/accused No.1 Pramod Jadhav had enticed her minor daughter/P.W.No.2. That is how, crime No.1 of 2014 for th